Rather than reaching a mass audience, Snapchat allows you to send messages directly to your group of subscribers. Snapchat messages or ‘stories’ allow you to combine photo, video, text and audio in a unique way to interact directly with fans.
Before you start using Snapchat for business, get to know the platform by using a personal account. Snapchat has lots of great features like filters, emoji and music effects, and you should know your way around these before you start messaging on behalf of your business.
Be original when you use it. Ensure you’re posting content that’s specifically created for Snapchat and get creative. Follow a few other brands and businesses and get a feel for what they’re posting.
Once you’ve got the hang of the platform, you’re ready to examine your audience. Snapchat users tend to be younger, so if you’re looking to reach the 18 to 24 audience, you’re in luck. And once users pick up Snapchat, they get hooked – there are over one billion views of Snapchat stories daily.
Your Snapchat subscribers are engaging with you in a different way to fans on Facebook or followers on Twitter. They’re agreeing to receive your content directly to their phone, and you should treat them in the same way you would your mailing list subscribers. So be generous and turn them into powerful advocates for your business. A great way to do this is to develop Snapchat-only offers that they can redeem using the code or URL you provide in the message.
If you’re not prepared to invest the time to build an audience, or if you want to use Snapchat as part of a broader marketing campaign on a one-off basis, partner with an influencer. They will broadcast your sponsored content to their audience, and you’ll reap the benefits. Alternatively, have an influencer take over your account. You’ll get their creative take on your business while accessing their audience.
Give your audience a unique point of view by using Snapchat to ‘broadcast’. Whether it’s a scene from your office, a conference or a product launch, a Snapchat story gives a unique point of view to your audience and gives them a deeper understanding of what your business is about.
Unlike other social platforms such as Twitter or Facebook, where the aim is to show your content to as many people as possible, Snapchat allows you to send content directly to your subscribers. This can be a benefit if you’re looking to trial a new offer or want to reward people who are committed advocates for your brand. Making content exclusive to Snapchat creates another level of access for your audience, so the more effort you put into creating this ‘exclusive’ content, the more you’ll gain from it.
Loren is an experienced marketing professional who translates data and insights using Isentia solutions into trends and research, bringing clients closer to the benefits of audience intelligence. Loren thrives on introducing the groundbreaking ways in which data and insights can help a brand or organisation, enabling them to exceed their strategic objectives and goals.
Business is a money-driven sector, with revenues, profits and cash flow important considerations.
Many functions can impact on a company's ability to generate positive revenue, and your reputation is one of the most vital.
A recent report from professional services and advisory firm Deloitte investigates how much companies value their reputation.
The 2013 edition found damage to a reputation was the No. 1 concern for business executives. This year, Deloitte partnered with Forbes Insight to delve deeper into reputation risk.
Released in October, the 2014 Global Survey on Reputation Risk found that:
"87 per cent of executives believe reputation is more important this year than in previous years"
"88 per cent say they are explicitly focusing on reputation as a key business challenge"
Reputation problems tend to have the biggest impact on revenue and brand value, according to the survey. Respondents who have experienced a negative reputation event said the areas which were affected the most included revenue (41 percent), loss of brand value (41 percent) and regulatory investigations (37 percent).
In Asia Pacific, the concern over revenue and earnings was even higher, with 56 per cent of respondents from this region naming this as most significant factor impacted by damage to their reputation.
Most communications professionals would be quick to put up their hand when asked who was in charge of protecting their company's reputation.
However, the Deloitte survey found that the responsibility for managing reputation risk actually falls on the shoulders of those in the executive-suite. Just over one-third (36 per cent) of respondents named the CEO as the key player, followed by the chief risk officer (21 per cent), board of directors (14 per cent) and chief financial officer (11 per cent).
There are unfortunately many things that could potentially damage your company's reputation the public eye. These include ethics and integrity risks (55 per cent), such as fraud and corruption. This is followed by security risks (45 per cent), like physical break-ins and cyber breaches. Finally, respondents also named product and service risks (43 per cent), including those that may impact on safety, health and the environment.
Reputational risk is a growing concern across the globe, so it is not surprising that many companies are planning to increase their investment in risk management strategies.
In particular, more than three-quarters of companies in the Asia-Pacific region (78 per cent) are planning to invest more in data collection related to reputation. This includes media monitoring and surveying tools to track mentions on traditional and digital media platforms.
This report demonstrates how important it is for any business to be keeping tabs on their reputation. Receiving real-time updates and media analysis can give companies the ability to respond and manage negative reputation events before they affect the organisation as a whole.
" ["post_title"]=> string(29) "How Much Is Reputation Worth?" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(222) "Business is a money-driven sector, with revenues, profits and cash flow important considerations. Many functions can impact on a company's ability to generate positive revenue, and your reputation is one of the most vital." ["post_status"]=> string(7) "publish" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(28) "how-much-is-reputation-worth" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2019-09-24 08:32:15" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2019-09-24 08:32:15" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(0) ["guid"]=> string(43) "https://isentiastaging.wpengine.com/?p=1875" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["post_mime_type"]=> string(0) "" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" }Business is a money-driven sector, with revenues, profits and cash flow important considerations.
Many functions can impact on a company’s ability to generate positive revenue, and your reputation is one of the most vital.
In a post-AI world where misinformation spreads faster than facts, trust in leadership has hit an all-time low. According to the latest Edelman Trust Barometer, we are witnessing a steep decline in how much the public trusts CEOs and institutions. So, how do leaders rebuild that capital?
In a recent webinar hosted by Isentia, we explored the critical role of authenticity as the pathway to trust. Moderated by Paik San, Head of Insights (Malaysia & Emerging Markets) at Isentia, the panel featured Kim Dy, Head of Brand & Communications for UnionDigital Bank, and Malathi Pillay, Director of Brand Equity & Communications at Malaysia Rapid Transit Corporation Sdn Bhd. Together with Isentia’s Prashant Saxena, VP, Revenue and Insights, SEA they unpacked how brands can navigate a low-trust environment by being human, consistent, and genuinely empathetic.
Here are the key takeaways from the discussion.
Prashant Saxena kicked off the session by grounding the abstract concept of trust in a practical framework. He noted that while trust is the ultimate "wealth" a brand possesses—protecting it during crises, authenticity is the daily "currency" one must invest to build that wealth.
Isentia’s data suggests that many leaders suffer from an "Authenticity signal poverty"—posting content that lacks social proof, information credibility, or cultural fit. To combat this, communication must rely on the "Three Ps":
One of the most powerful insights came from Malathi Pillay at MRT Corp, who manages the reputation of massive public infrastructure projects, emphasized that trust isn't built in big moments, but through the consistency of day-to-day behavior. Her advice for staying authentic is to avoid the trap of "motherhood statements", words that don't really resonate with the common audiences.
She explained that stating a vision like "transforming mobility" is often lost on the audience. To make the brand promise authenticity, one must provide context.
"We always try to support our messaging with specific examples... We talk about that university student that lives in Kajang, who is now able to get to his university in Kota Damansara in one smooth ride within 45 minutes." — Malathi Pillay.
By grounding the narrative in specific, relatable human benefits, like saving time or creating local jobs, brands can bridge the gap between corporate goals and public reality. She also mentions how misinformation does not always have to be dealt with bold statements. Quiet corrections also go a long way in maintaining consistency in our media comms.
Kim Dy from UnionDigital Bank addressed the challenge of humanising a traditionally cold and intimidating industry: banking. For a digital bank where customers may never speak to a human, the brand voice must do the heavy lifting.
Kim introduced the idea of a "human compass"—a framework ensuring every notification, app interface, and social post is helpful, clear, and optimistic.
"People trust people, not logos. Authenticity means speaking the language of your customers, and staying away from jargon in an industry that is unwelcoming and very intimidating." — Kim Dy
She shared a real-world example where a deepfake of a brand ambassador surfaced promoting gambling. Instead of hiding, the bank acted with speed and transparency, proving that trust isn't built in good times alone, but is earned by how you face problems head-on and when audiences actually see the steps taken to better the brand's reputation and earn back trust.
Both panelists agreed that the role of a leader has shifted. In the past, authority meant firmness. Today, authority requires empathy.
As the panel concluded, the conversation turned to the role of AI.
Prashant highlighted a "speed vs. sincerity" dilemma facing modern communicators. His solution was to let data provide the authority, but let leadership provide the empathy. Malathi added that while AI is a tool we all use, leaders must have the discipline not to let it replace human judgment.
In her closing remarks, Paik San summarises that the secret to building lasting trust is coherence. It is the alignment of what you say, what you do, and how you make your audience feel over time.
Whether you are managing a digital bank or the infrastructural capabilities of public transport, the rules of engagement have changed. In a noisy world, the most cutting-edge strategy a leader can employ is simply being human.
Interested in viewing the whole recording? Watch our webinar here.
Alternatively contact our team to learn more insights into authenticity, leadership and why trust is on a decline.
The webinar explores how leaders can rebuild eroding public trust by treating authenticity as currency through transparent communication.
In leadership meetings across the industry, a single question has become unavoidable: "What is our AI strategy?" Behind this question is often the unspoken hope for an "AI Easy Button": a mythical, one-click solution to our most complex measurement challenges. As someone who spends a large portion of my time designing these new frameworks, I'm infinitely more excited about the blueprints and the foundations than what colour the house is painted.
For the first time in my career, we have the tools to stop using proxies and start building what we've always wanted: true, at-scale, sophisticated measurement. The real opportunity isn't in automation, which lets the AI decide; it's in the architecture and design of systems for the AI to follow. For decades, I’ve been frustrated by proxies. I’ve watched organisations use metrics like Impressions and Share of Voice as proxies for impact and influence. Too many people have been measuring the loudness of their voice, not whether anyone was actually listening.
Much of the history of communications measurement has been a story of 'good enough' data. And in some cases, data that wasn't even good at all (*cough* AVEs).
But before we can harness the potential of AI, we have to be honest about the technology and tools we're working with. As anyone who's ever used a "smart" tool knows, they can be... well, confidently wrong.
The new challenge isn't just "Garbage In, Garbage Out." The new challenge is that the AI has become a high-speed, frighteningly convincing echo chamber. When a machine delivers a flawed insight, it does so with the resolute certainty of a supercomputer, laundering that flaw into a "fact."As architects, our job is to audit the blueprints and stress-test the materials before we build the house. When my team and I test these models, we're not just looking for what they do right. We're methodically hunting for where they go wrong.
Where we continue to see a critical need for human intervention and expertise:
This is the methodical, behind-the-scenes work that often goes unseen, and it is the crucial due diligence needed. It’s not as flashy as writing a press release faster, but it’s the only way to build a tool you can actually trust to make a strategic decision.
This testing isn't just about finding technical bugs or funny hallucinations. We’re testing these new AI models against the foundational, hard-won principles of communications measurement that our industry has spent years formalising.
AI is an incredibly powerful new tool, but it doesn't get a free pass. It still has to follow the rules of good measurement.
When we stop seeing AI as a magic box and start seeing it as a powerful, scalable engine, one that we must build and steer based on these principles, then it becomes truly transformative.
A new frontier of opportunity is here. Such as the capability to move from being reactive to being predictive, and it takes careful design to get this right. Our traditional analysis has been brilliant at explaining what has just happened. Now, as architects of these new systems, we are building and testing AI models that can scan the horizon for the faint signals that precede a major narrative shift.
We can empower movement from broadcasting and the old spray and pray approach; to precision, deliberate engagement of stakeholders and audiences. This is another area where the craft of measurement design is essential. AI gives us the power to see the micro-communities and specific, high-authority voices that actually shape opinion. The work is in designing the models that can identify them accurately.
Finally, we can (at last!) move from quantifying to qualifying at scale. For me, this is the most exciting and complex challenge. For 20 years, I’ve had to choose: a large-scale quantitative study (which missed nuance) or a small-scale qualitative review (which couldn't be scaled). As architects, we can now design frameworks that don't just give a "positive" score but confirm that a specific strategic message landed, with the right audiences, and in the intended context.
That is the opportunity. It's not magic. It's the methodical, patient engineering we've been waiting for. It’s the difference between a "plug-and-play" gimmick and a truly strategic asset. The real payoff isn't just faster reporting, it’s about fundamentally upgrading behaviours and expectations of measurement. This isn't an overnight shift. As any research leader will tell you, a new methodology takes time, testing and refinement to get right.
For my entire career, we’ve been strategic thinkers working with tools that could only show us the past. We were forced to be historians, meticulously analysing what had already happened to predict future behaviour. The key to using this new, complex technology effectively is; strong communication, articulation and critical human thinking. The power of any AI is unlocked by the quality of the question you ask it. It's a system that rewards clear, precise, and strategic language.
This is a massive homefield advantage for communicators, who have spent their entire careers honing the exact skills required to be the architects of this new era. The AI we are using today is the worst it will ever be. It will only get better, faster, and more capable from here. This is what's so thrilling, and it's just the beginning. This new generation of AI driven approaches doesn't replace our intuition, it amplifies it. As communicators (and researchers!) this is the moment to level up. We get to be the explorers and the strategists who connect communications directly to business, policy and societal outcomes.
We're not just building better measurement and deeper insights; we're leading a more intelligent, more responsive and more impactful profession. What an incredibly exciting time to be in this industry.
To learn how to build the right KPIs and tell a compelling story with your data, register for our live webinar:
Explore how crucial human oversight is over AI models when it comes to the future of smart measurement in communications.
Australia’s upcoming social media ban for minors hasn’t been primarily driven organic debate. Instead, it’s unfolded through a deliberate, tightly paced sequence of government-led communications, each phase designed to build momentum, secure legitimacy, and keep control of the public narrative.
What we’re seeing in the media data isn’t a spontaneous rise in interest, but a pattern of spikes that line up neatly with major government moments. Each one serves a purpose in a broader narrative strategy, and each reveals something about where the public conversation is heading next.
The rollout of Australia’s social media ban has followed something of a three-act script. It really began on the world stage, with Prime Minister Albanese’s UN address framing the policy as a “world-first” and earning global praise that positioned Australia as a leader rather than a legislator under pressure, a narrative heavily amplified across bulletins nationwide. Momentum built when Denmark echoed the proposal, turning the story from an Australian policy into a global movement and giving journalists a reason to return to it without new domestic detail. Subsequently, the focus shifted home, with the launch of the government’s ad campaign. Coverage has moved from delivery to confirmation, from diplomacy to daily life, embedding the message of child safety through stories designed to connect emotionally with parents before the ban takes effect.
Media coverage of the social media ban is being driven by a hierarchy of voices. At the top are the political architects, Anthony Albanese and Anika Wells, who account for 68% of all quoted commentary. Their dominance reflects a message tightly controlled from the centre, with each public appearance designed to reinforce authority and focus the debate. eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant follows as the enforcer, providing regulatory credibility and keeping the story alive through ongoing updates and meetings with tech companies.Around them, Emma Mason’s personal story gives the policy its emotional weight, while expert voices like Dr Jason Nagata and Mitch Prinstein lend scientific legitimacy. Counter-voices such as Patrick McGorry are present but faint, just 1% of total commentary. Together, these strands create a coordinated ecosystem where political leadership, regulation, expertise, and emotion work in unison to sustain a single, dominant narrative.
The next layer of coverage reveals how the story’s momentum is being sustained, not just by government messaging, but by the constellation of organisations caught in its orbit. Meta, Google, TikTok, and Snapchat remain the gravitational centre of the conversation, collectively shaping more than a thousand mentions each. They are the policy’s focal point and the media’s shorthand for what’s at stake.
Stories about ministerial meetings, enforcement challenges, and pleas for exemptions ensure these brands stay in the headlines, but on government terms, framed as subjects of regulation rather than equal participants in debate. This has also surfaced one of the key underlying questions: Will the ban actually work? There is a significant narrative thread focused on the practical challenges of enforcement, with YouTube widely quoted in the media as saying the ban is "'extremely difficult' to enforce".
With the media also reporting that the government will rely on "artificial intelligence (AI) and behavioural data to reliably infer age" rather than hard age verification, the public is left asking: If tech giants say it's unenforceable and teens are already finding ways around it, what will this law actually achieve?
The eSafety Commission anchors the enforcement narrative, while the European Commission’s support sustains the “world-first” framing abroad. As the scope of the ban widens, platforms like Roblox, Discord and Reddit have been pulled into focus, signalling how the policy, and its coverage, keeps expanding. This has forced the core question into the open: What is a "social media platform" in 2025?
Although the government’s narrative still dominates, a set of counter-stories is emerging, focusing on the policy’s real-world consequences. Central to these stories are concerns about young people losing access to vital online connections, particularly among regional or marginalised communities. Advocates for the LGBTIQA+ community and youth mental health experts like Professor Pat McGorry argue that the ban could isolate teenagers who rely on online spaces for support, and entrepreneurial opportunities. Other reporting has questioned the reliability of AI-based age verification, the volume of data collected, and the risk that well-intended rules might backfire, creating unintended consequences that contradict the policy’s goal of child safety. These counter-narratives remain smaller in scale than the dominant political messaging, but they cut through because they frame the debate around everyday impacts rather than top-down authority.
A particularly visible strand of coverage centres on the unclear definition of “social media” in the legislation. While the public typically thinks of platforms like Instagram and TikTok, the law’s wording has forced a broader debate that draws in platforms such as Roblox, Discord, and Steam. The eSafety Commissioner’s proactive enforcement measures have highlighted these regulatory ambiguities, prompting media to question whether platforms with different primary purposes should be included and whether the policy might trade one harm for another. Discord drew attention following a poorly timed data breach, which the public and media linked to potential ID theft risks. These reports show how regulators and secondary players can keep the conversation alive, highlighting risks, opening new angles, and forming alliances that complicate the policy debate. A notable example is YouTube’s effort to argue it should not be classified as a social media platform, citing the platform’s role in launching careers like Australian artist Troye Sivan as part of a broader cultural and creative ecosystem.
Together, these stories illustrate that while the government controls the main narrative, emerging counter-voices are beginning to shape the media conversation in ways that emphasise practical and social realities.
" ["post_title"]=> string(58) "Australia’s social media ban played out in the headlines" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_status"]=> string(7) "publish" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(54) "australia-social-media-ban-played-out-in-the-headlines" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2025-10-29 21:25:40" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2025-10-29 21:25:40" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(0) ["guid"]=> string(32) "https://www.isentia.com/?p=42980" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["post_mime_type"]=> string(0) "" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" }Australia’s upcoming social media ban for minors hasn’t been primarily driven organic debate. Instead, it’s unfolded through a deliberate, tightly paced sequence of government-led communications, each phase designed to build momentum, secure legitimacy, and keep control of the public narrative. What we’re seeing in the media data isn’t a spontaneous rise in interest, but a […]
Get in touch or request a demo.